Philosophy Now Forum

Skip wrote:

Ned wrote: It was an ethical question, not a legal one. The mechanism of legislation, laws, constitution, etc. are irrelevant to this thread.

But it's government that does the taxing. What kind of government we live under seems relevant to how we perceive its central functions. I very much doubt anyone here can separate out their attitudes to paying taxes and what those taxes are used for from their attitude to governance in general and the economic policies of own nation in particular. But, okay.

1./ How do you feel about someone forcing you (by enacting tax laws) to help others you never met?

Fine. I think it's their responsibility, my obligation and the recipients' right. Acquaintanceship doesn't come into ethics.

2./ If you think some force is justified, on what principle should the magnitude/extent of this force be based on (or you go along with arbitrarily selected limits) ?

If I can't cite the constitution which already exists, then the principle would have to be arrived-at by a consensus or majority decision of my fellow citizens. If I were dictator and had to make the decision alone, I would still consult an advisory council.


My question about poverty was relevant to the proper disposition of revenues collected. Other people got to mention armaments; I should be allowed to ask about trade schools and public housing.

I agree that legislation and governance is relevant to this topic. As usual, the issue has complexities whose relevance might not seem to be...er... relevant... or pertinent at first sight.

garygary wrote:I would like to ask a question as a follow-up to the original question:

Does a citizen have an obligation to not be a burden on society?

For example, a mother and father that have 12 children they can't take care of financially... and yet they are pregnant once again. If we as individuals in society must work a percentage of our work week to provide food and shelter to the family, don't the parents have an obligation to minimize their burden on society?

Very good point gary, one that must be discussed, of course.

However, we have to look at more than one link in the cause-and-effect chain.

In a way, we are all victims to our circumstances.

Take the parents of the 12 children, that you mentioned, as an example.

I will make up a background to flesh out the picture:

They were uneducated young people, not too intelligent, who grew up in a trailer park, with alcoholic parents on welfare. The local priest beat into their minds from adolescence the sin of contraception and the need to obey 'god' by not killing babies with abortion. They were very young, much in love, sex was the only 'entertainment' they could afford. They were always worried about their circumstances, the possibility of losing their jobs and be thrown out on the street with their children, and the only relief they could find in their anxiety-ridden lives was sex and more sex. The result? 12 children.

If you think that this scenario is unusual, you are wrong. With different variations, it is played out all over the country, as we speak.

So, carrying back the cause-and-effect chain one step further: does society have responsibility for what they became?

You see, there is no easy and obvious answer, because you have to go back to bedrock: the nature of the social organization and the fundamental principles it is based on. I have addressed this issue at length in my other thread: "Proposal for a New Social Contract".

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=15487

marjoram_blues wrote:I agree that legislation and governance is relevant to this topic. As usual, the issue has complexities whose relevance might not seem to be...er... relevant... or pertinent at first sight.

I agree.

Of course, it is relevant to this topic, but from a different angle than what I had in mind. I was thinking about the ethical stands individuals might take on this issue, from a personal perspective. I am more than willing to discuss the larger, social perspective, as I already started in my previous post.

marjoram_blues wrote:Again. Good point about 'compassion'. I tried to address this in Ned's 'other' thread about what we owe others.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=15581

However, Ned seems not to want to address this. He snipped this sentence out:
'What use compassion, if there is not forethought and responsibility to provide care and security by any 'carer' ?'

Again, I agree that "forethought and responsibility" by the carer are important issues that must be discussed. However, I tried to focus on a very specific question (an individual's reaction to being forced to be charitable). It is sometimes useful to narrow the focus this way, in order to be able to arrive at a consensus. If we go all over the place, and try to deal with the complexity of the issue all at once, we may end up going in circles and never arrive at an agreement about anything.

Ned wrote:
Well, I am biased on this issue, because I am one of the poor and live on a very modest government pension. We are listed way under the poverty line and, without the extra income from our small online book business, we would barely manage.

I think this raises the interesting question of 'what is poverty?'
And use of the collective term 'the poor'.
One can envisage a spectrum from left to right - or from up to down - with gross poverty and richness at the extreme ends.

Each society/individual has a different view of what it is to be 'poor'. Or 'one of the poor'.
We can ask what is the 'poverty line' in your country? A yearly income? What criteria are being used?

If you have a house, a business, land - can you be described as 'one of the poor'? It's all relative.
The trick is to find the balance which people find acceptable/fair. Some rich might consider themselves poorer if taxes are 'stolen' from them for the benefit of the so-called undeserving poor - those who can't/won't or aren't seen to contribute in a monetary way to society.

What is needed is some real knowledge about what it actually means to be a poor individual; made redundant/homeless/criminalised through no fault of their own. Some of the rich might be knowledge-poor and proud of it...others are other-wise.

Right now, taxation seems to be only option to address problems created by underlying issues...the causes/source of poverty.

Anyway, enough rambling - with all irrelevancies duly noted, I trust.

marjoram_blues wrote:Each society/individual has a different view of what it is to be 'poor'. Or 'one of the poor'.
We can ask what is the 'poverty line' in your country? A yearly income? What criteria are being used?

If you have a house, a business, land - can you be described as 'one of the poor'? It's all relative.

Yes, you are right. Compared to Angolan peasants who live on $1 a day -- we are all rich.

The term 'poor' is meaningful only within your own social environment: your own country. The psychological effect of poverty does not depend on your absolute level of comfort, but on the relative position that you occupy in the range of affluence you see around you. If you see that you can't afford most of the luxuries (small or large) that everyone around you seem to be able to afford -- you will feel poor.

As far as the "house, business, land" is concerned, again you have to look at the details. What kind of house, how much mortgage, what's the monthly payments relative to your income, how much is left over after all the bills are paid and food is bought? Without the business, practically nothing. With the business, enough to pay for small luxuries, like a concert or a theater once in a while. Not too often.

As you said: it is all relative.

PS. One republican congressman (I forgot his name) said: "there are no poor people in America -- they all have fridges and TV sets"!!!

He never asked if there was food in the fridge, or if they can afford to pay for the electricity?

Ned wrote:

marjoram_blues wrote:Again. Good point about 'compassion'. I tried to address this in Ned's 'other' thread about what we owe others.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=15581

However, Ned seems not to want to address this. He snipped this sentence out:
'What use compassion, if there is not forethought and responsibility to provide care and security by any 'carer' ?'

Again, I agree that "forethought and responsibility" by the carer are important issues that must be discussed. However, I tried to focus on a very specific question (an individual's reaction to being forced to be charitable). It is sometimes useful to narrow the focus this way, in order to be able to arrive at a consensus. If we go all over the place, and try to deal with the complexity of the issue all at once, we may end up going in circles and never arrive at an agreement about anything.

I don't think that the narrow and speculative scenario you focused on went - or could go, anywhere near arriving at a consensus on what we owe others, which was the main topic of the thread. To discount or dismiss my sentence did not indicate that you were concerned with this broader picture.
You seem to want to tie these 2 threads together somehow.
However, the focus on gun violence and a psychopathic fisherman does not equate with government 'coercion' by law, and those 'uncaring' who do not wish to be taxed.

Exploring what is meant by 'compassion', amongst other virtues and requirements for 'care', does not mean that we are going 'all over the place' nor is it 'dealing with the complexities of the issue of all at once'.
However, at this point - I can see that it is time to leave you to your own 'relevancies'. Again.

marjoram_blues wrote:I don't think that the narrow and speculative scenario you focused on went - or could go, anywhere near arriving at a consensus on what we owe others, which was the main topic of the thread. To discount or dismiss my sentence did not indicate that you were concerned with this broader picture....However, at this point - I can see that it is time to leave you to your own 'relevancies'. Again

No discounting and dismissing is at play here. If you don't see the point I have been trying to make, it is unfortunate, but there is nothing I can do about it. Our methods and styles of debating are obviously quite different and you disagree with mine. That is OK, I have no problems with disagreement.

I think the wise thing to do is to agree to disagree on this point.

Ned wrote:

marjoram_blues wrote:I don't think that the narrow and speculative scenario you focused on went - or could go, anywhere near arriving at a consensus on what we owe others, which was the main topic of the thread. To discount or dismiss my sentence did not indicate that you were concerned with this broader picture....However, at this point - I can see that it is time to leave you to your own 'relevancies'. Again

No discounting and dismissing is at play here. If you don't see the point I have been trying to make, it is unfortunate, but there is nothing I can do about it.

I think the wise thing to do is to agree to disagree on this point.

Characterising posts as 'irrelevant' is 'dismissal'.
And it is 'at play' throughout many of your threads.

Clearly, I disagree with your judgement as to what is considered relevant.

If someone doesn't understand a topic or points, then the poster needs to clarify the issue - for all concerned.
If someone thinks there is a 'blind spot' in any discussion, then it needs to be pointed out.
This would be the 'wise thing to do' - not dismiss.

Edit: I didn't see this:

Our methods and styles of debating are obviously quite different and you disagree with mine. That is OK, I have no problems with disagreement

This is not about different methods or styles of debating. How on earth did you get the idea that I disagree with yours?

That's all for now.

marjoram_blues wrote:How on earth did you get the idea that I disagree with yours?

Ordinary administration with Ned.

marjoram_blues wrote:Characterising posts as 'irrelevant' is 'dismissal'.

Not necessarily. It can be an attempt to keep the discussion focused. Which is what I tried to do. Besides, I never characterized entire posts as irrelevant -- only some parts of some of the posts. And never as irrelevant by themselves, only in the context of the intended purpose of the thread.

If someone doesn't understand a topic or points, then the poster needs to clarify the issue - for all concerned.
If someone thinks there is a 'blind spot' in any discussion, then it needs to be pointed out.

That is true, but it's a two-way street. Both parties need to make an effort to understand each other. When I don't see that effort because the accusations outweigh the requests for clarification, then one might find the debate at a dead end and not wish to continue.

This is not about different methods or styles of debating. How on earth did you get the idea that I disagree with yours?

That's easy to answer. You keep accusing me of dismissing you, when I only want to stay focused. The difference in style and method is obvious. As is your disagreement with mine.

PS. This thread was going so well, for such a long time. How did we get sidetracked into discussing personalities? marjoram, if you have a problem with me, let's discuss it privately, by an exchange of PMs -- instead of derailing the thread into accusations and analyzing personalities.

PPS. In any case, I will NOT respond to anything of a personal nature from now on. Let's discuss the issues, not each other's character. I am sure all the other participants in this thread will gladly agree.

Ned wrote:

marjoram_blues wrote:Characterising posts as 'irrelevant' is 'dismissal'.

Not necessarily. It can be an attempt to keep the discussion focused. Which is what I tried to do. Besides, I never characterized entire posts as irrelevant -- only some parts of some of the posts. And never as irrelevant by themselves, only in the context of the intended purpose of the thread.

If someone doesn't understand a topic or points, then the poster needs to clarify the issue - for all concerned.
If someone thinks there is a 'blind spot' in any discussion, then it needs to be pointed out.

That is true, but it's a two-way street. Both parties need to make an effort to understand each other. When I don't see that effort because the accusations outweigh the requests for clarification, then one might find the debate at a dead end and not wish to continue.

This is not about different methods or styles of debating. How on earth did you get the idea that I disagree with yours?

That's easy to answer. You keep accusing me of dismissing you, when I only want to stay focused. The difference in style and method is obvious. As it is your disagreement with mine.

OK - not quite gone ...yet.
Thanks for pointing out my error. I meant points not posts. And naturally I meant any points made within the context of the thread.
Sometimes the 'intended purpose' of a thread is not entirely clear. This can give scope for exploring ideas and thoughts which might lead to greater insight. To kill points as irrelevant not only discourages free-thinking, it narrows outlook. Keeping focus together with an eye on the main picture is not impossible or incompatible. Difficult to manage in a thread with several interested parties and sometimes the effort to keep tight control is counter-productive.

What do you see as 'accusations' ? Such confrontational language.
I did not accuse you of 'dismissing me' - only that you dismiss points as irrelevant, which aren't really so. Sometimes it does seem that this judgement is of a personal nature.
You seem to have different criteria for relevance and focus on topic when responding to other 'friendly' comments/chat.

Our main difference is in judgement of what is happening re inclusion/exclusion.

Anyway, I think we can both agree that we are way off-topic.
Apologies to anyone following the thread.

Ned added:
PS. This thread was going so well, for such a long time. How did we get sidetracked into discussing personalities? marjoram, if you have a problem with me, let's discuss it privately, by an exchange of PMs -- instead of derailing the thread into accusations and analyzing personalities.

PPS. In any case, I will NOT respond to anything of a personal nature from now on. Let's discuss the issues, not each other's character. I am sure all the other participants in this thread will gladly agree.

I do not intend to PM you. Carry on.

garygary wrote:When discussing welfare for needy individuals, the distraction of corporate welfare often comes up. That "corporate welfare" is approximately double what "needy welfare" amounts to in no way implies that "needy welfare" is right and proper. They are two separate discussions. How about if a murderer on trial used this type of argument to avoid prosecution? "Well, your honor, Seung-Hui Cho killed way more people than I did, so why should I be prosecuted?"

As for the term "welfare for the rich," it is interesting to note that lately, taxpayer funded corporate subsidies have been approved by more democrats in congress than republicans. I don't think the term "welfare for the rich" is a fair term for these corporate subsidies anyway. After all, democrats, champions of the poor, vote for them. So I would contend that congress views the subsidies as good for the nation's economy and security. I don't necessarily agree however.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand....

Does the taxpayer owe the "needy" a portion of his labor? Which brought up the question "Do the needy owe anything to the taxpayer"?

gary, I responded to this post, at length, on page 5.

Please make sure that you don't miss it.

The thread got derailed a bit after that, but it looks like we are ready to resume with the topic.

Off -topic

David Handeye wrote:

marjoram_blues wrote:How on earth did you get the idea that I disagree with yours?

Ordinary administration with Ned.

There is a personality clash and a difference in judgement, that's all
Anyway, enough already.